Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›799 »

NextSundayA.D.: May 13, 2009

BKPR posted:

I'm sure this has been covered in this thread a dozen times over, but...what's the best AAR to read for someone starting out with EU3?

This is my favorite http://lparchive.org/Europa-Universalis-III-Divine-Wind/

# ? Feb 7, 2013 05:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 14:48

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Fintilgin posted:

I refute you thusly, sir:
...
ETC ETC AD NAUSEUM

Seriously, it's fun, and there's something to be said for a human comprehensible, board game like mechanical simplicity.

Just to bring up a game that was talked about a couple of pages ago: Imperialism. By keeping goods as small discrete units with similarly small discrete proportions for consumption and processing/production, the game not only makes it possible for the player to personally manage factories and production and trading, it also makes it rather fun.

You get a pretty good idea of what's profitable, how to make it and who you need to ~~conquer~~ establish most-favored-nation status to corner the market on it, because you're never dealing with more than a dozen units of Lumber or Steel or Clothes at any one time.

Even the "RGO/infrastructure improvement" mini-game is more intuitive: Explorers check hill and mountain hexes for resources, Builders improve hexes so you can draw the resources out, and Engineers build railroads and ports to link improved hexes back to your capital.

Don't get me wrong, Victoria's a fine game and all, but you have to hand over control to the AI because it's just not feasible to suss out prices and profit margins by yourself, or at least not without the computer crunching the numbers for you anyway. Imperialism's a lot more interactive (a rewarding activity in and of itself) in that regard, but also because its underlying numbers were designed to not need a processor, as though it was a boardgame.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 05:37

coolskull: Nov 11, 2007

NextSundayA.D. posted:

This is my favorite http://lparchive.org/Europa-Universalis-III-Divine-Wind/

Nice, I liked Kersch's CK2 AAR. Thanks!

# ? Feb 7, 2013 05:38

Soylent Pudding: Jun 22, 2007; We've got people!

BKPR posted:

I'm sure this has been covered in this thread a dozen times over, but...what's the best AAR to read for someone starting out with EU3?

Here ya go: http://lparchive.org/Europa-Universalis-III-Divine-Wind/

# ? Feb 7, 2013 05:39

catlord: Mar 22, 2009; What's on your mind, Axa?

Is there a version of the Dark Continent Scenario for Vanilla? I'm still learning the game but I want to poke around with an alternate scenario. Also, the idea of westernising weirds me out. I don't like the idea of having to end up next to a western nation, especially when it seems real gamey, like running to Africa as Korea so you can end up next to Portugal or something.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 05:43

Vegetable: Oct 22, 2010

Effectronica posted:

I'm not sure how people are defining winning and losing in this context. We say that the USSR "lost" the Cold War because it broke up and abandoned socialism. It seems that the American equivalent would have to involve abandoning capitalism and similarly losing its major exterior entanglements. I guess maybe turning into some sort of attempt at autarkic non-capitalist economics, if we don't want to have it go full communist and balkanized, but I doubt that EvW will be able to define that sort of thing well anyways.

This is a pretty useful thing to think about. A lot of historians assert that the Cold War ended before the USSR collapsed. They consider several markers: the breakaway of Eastern Europe, the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the signing of START I etc. An alt-history ending of the Cold War should encompass various interpretations as well.

Vegetable fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Feb 7, 2013

# ? Feb 7, 2013 10:32

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

A United States loss definitely has to involve Georgia breaking away from the republic, though.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 10:36

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Spiderfist Island posted:

It would be stupid for a game based around the Cold War to not have a "US Loses" event spiral, but to make it in the same vein as those Russian talking heads predicting the balkanization of the US isn't exactly realistic.

While the US does have an advantage in being more culturally homogeneous, ideas such as "state rights" and regional identities can be exacerbated by economic difficulties. Especially since different sectors of the economy are not evenly spread throughout the country. A continued oil embargo might see the federal government attempt to increasingly take control of the oil fields, which for example the Texans could be pretty opposed to. Given that Texas has perhaps the strongest secessionist streak, that's probably not a good thing for the union. Texas alone also represents a third of the area needed to secede before the US has lost the same proportion of territory as the USSR lost when it broke apart, and if somehow Alaska could follow you would actually exceed that. You don't exactly need every state to leave for the US to match the USSR.

That said, a break-up of the US should of course not be the only possible indication that the US has lost/is losing. Before that point, you have the fall of US sponsored dictators, the break-up of NATO/SEATO and other good stuff. Hopefully handled in a way that has a cause and effect that's not based in artificial game concepts such as [US at <25% Superpower Status -> NATO breakup].

# ? Feb 7, 2013 12:03

John Charity Spring: Nov 4, 2009; SCREEEEE

catlord posted:

Is there a version of the Dark Continent Scenario for Vanilla? I'm still learning the game but I want to poke around with an alternate scenario. Also, the idea of westernising weirds me out. I don't like the idea of having to end up next to a western nation, especially when it seems real gamey, like running to Africa as Korea so you can end up next to Portugal or something.

Miscmods is pretty similar to vanilla (to the extent that it doesn't really make it harder for a new player to learn, at all) so just go for the MiscMods Dark Continent scenario if you want to give it a shot.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 12:10

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

Yeah miscmods is perfectly accessible if you understand the jist of vanilla.

Edit: also westernization is a vanilla mechanic, miscmods changes some of the requirements but its largely the same thing.

RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Feb 7, 2013

# ? Feb 7, 2013 12:18

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

gradenko_2000 posted:

Just to bring up a game that was talked about a couple of pages ago: Imperialism. By keeping goods as small discrete units with similarly small discrete proportions for consumption and processing/production, the game not only makes it possible for the player to personally manage factories and production and trading, it also makes it rather fun.

You get a pretty good idea of what's profitable, how to make it and who you need to ~~conquer~~ establish most-favored-nation status to corner the market on it, because you're never dealing with more than a dozen units of Lumber or Steel or Clothes at any one time.

Even the "RGO/infrastructure improvement" mini-game is more intuitive: Explorers check hill and mountain hexes for resources, Builders improve hexes so you can draw the resources out, and Engineers build railroads and ports to link improved hexes back to your capital.

Don't get me wrong, Victoria's a fine game and all, but you have to hand over control to the AI because it's just not feasible to suss out prices and profit margins by yourself, or at least not without the computer crunching the numbers for you anyway. Imperialism's a lot more interactive (a rewarding activity in and of itself) in that regard, but also because its underlying numbers were designed to not need a processor, as though it was a boardgame.

I'm in total agreement with this post, and that imperialism II is also a better game than EU3 in most respects, though it has flaws. One of the things that Imperialism games do very well is simulate the importance of having markets, not necessarily under your control, but having them available. Also, sea power is kind of a big deal in these games whereas it's an afterthought in just about every Paradox game.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 13:53

Patter Song: Mar 26, 2010; Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.; Fun Shoe

A Buttery Pastry posted:

While the US does have an advantage in being more culturally homogeneous, ideas such as "state rights" and regional identities can be exacerbated by economic difficulties. Especially since different sectors of the economy are not evenly spread throughout the country. A continued oil embargo might see the federal government attempt to increasingly take control of the oil fields, which for example the Texans could be pretty opposed to. Given that Texas has perhaps the strongest secessionist streak, that's probably not a good thing for the union. Texas alone also represents a third of the area needed to secede before the US has lost the same proportion of territory as the USSR lost when it broke apart, and if somehow Alaska could follow you would actually exceed that. You don't exactly need every state to leave for the US to match the USSR.

That said, a break-up of the US should of course not be the only possible indication that the US has lost/is losing. Before that point, you have the fall of US sponsored dictators, the break-up of NATO/SEATO and other good stuff. Hopefully handled in a way that has a cause and effect that's not based in artificial game concepts such as [US at <25% Superpower Status -> NATO breakup].

I agree with the earlier poster who said that a full-fledged secession isn't really reasonable but a civil war for control of the US producing several large power blocs, each claiming to be the legitimate US government but none quite able to beat the others, is the most plausible US breakup, and even that would be a short-term thing. It'd be more reminiscent of one of China's periodic collapses than anything else.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 16:48

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Patter Song posted:

I agree with the earlier poster who said that a full-fledged secession isn't really reasonable

Why not? The US has largely been coasting along during its short lifetime, what would sustained pressure do? Economic differences* and the desire for secessionist politicians to become/remain big fish in a small pond, instead of small fish in a big pond could easily magnify the divide caused by cultural differences. Sure, the federal government might choose to occupy a state trying to secede, but that could backfire as the usual "state's rights" people start getting really antsy over the federal government pointing its guns at the states. It's not that I don't think the federal government could remain in control unless things really went to poo poo, just that maybe the price would be too high for anyone to accept?

*Would the people of a secessionist state with a higher per capita GDP than the US average necessarily want to rejoin/remake the US, and therefore have to send subsidies to poorer states again? Especially if the secession was caused by a terribly economy, and the secession fixed it?

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 7, 2013

# ? Feb 7, 2013 17:17

Patter Song: Mar 26, 2010; Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.; Fun Shoe

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Why not? The US has largely been coasting along during its short lifetime, what would sustained pressure do? Economic differences* and the desire for secessionist politicians to become/remain big fish in a small pond, instead of small fish in a big pond could easily magnify the divide caused by cultural differences. Sure, the federal government might choose to occupy a state trying to secede, but that could backfire as the usual "state's rights" people start getting really antsy over the federal government pointing its guns at the states. It's not that I don't think the federal government could remain in control unless things really went to poo poo, just that maybe the price would be too high for anyone to accept?

*Would the people of a secessionist state with a higher per capita GDP than the US average necessarily want to rejoin/remake the US, and therefore have to send subsidies to poorer states again? Especially if the secession was caused by a terribly economy, and the secession fixed it?

A lot of those poorer states that receive subsidies are in possession of various things that make them desirable to hold onto anyway. A good example is West Virginia, which in many ways is a charity case but even so has absolutely massive, productive coalfields even today, and coal supremacy is one of the things that placed the US in the upper echelon of world powers to begin with. Even though a lot of people would say "good riddance" to a West Virginia on the face of it, they'd soon be missing that coal.

Another problem is that, with a few exceptions like a hypothetical independent New England or Pacific Northwest, you'd end up with a lot of landlocked inland countries that are totally surrounded by the US/jabbed up against the Canadian border with no real outlet for import-export with the rest of the world. I could imagine an instance where a lot of the US' minor outlying territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, given that this is a Cold War game the Pacific Islands Trust Territories) calling it quits and going in their own directions, but even if a bunch of nuts in Utah want to reestablish Deseret, you're a long way from the ocean in Utah and your economy will still be at the mercy of the US government.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 17:42

Elias_Maluco: Aug 23, 2007; I need to sleep

So now that we got Crusader Kings 2 working perfectly in linux through steam, I wonder if paradox intends to port its other Clausewitz engine games?

# ? Feb 7, 2013 17:51

Raw_Beef: Jul 2, 2004; We know what you been up to and my advice on that little venture is to pack it in. It won't work. It will all end in tears.

I still play AOD. Am i the only one? Should i just get Hoi3 and move on?

Finally beat the alt-history scenario as the CSNA. Felt bad because every government left on earth was national socialist.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 18:13

KoldPT: Oct 9, 2012

Raw_Beef posted:

I still play AOD. Am i the only one? Should i just get Hoi3 and move on?

Finally beat the alt-history scenario as the CSNA. Felt bad because every government left on earth was national socialist.

Most people moved to Darkest Hour. HOI3 is very... divisive.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 18:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Patter Song posted:

A lot of those poorer states that receive subsidies are in possession of various things that make them desirable to hold onto anyway. A good example is West Virginia, which in many ways is a charity case but even so has absolutely massive, productive coalfields even today, and coal supremacy is one of the things that placed the US in the upper echelon of world powers to begin with. Even though a lot of people would say "good riddance" to a West Virginia on the face of it, they'd soon be missing that coal.

It's not like a border necessarily prevents trade, and the people who own those coalfields would probably not be happy about anyone suggesting they couldn't sell to whoever they wanted.

Patter Song posted:

Another problem is that, with a few exceptions like a hypothetical independent New England or Pacific Northwest, you'd end up with a lot of landlocked inland countries that are totally surrounded by the US/jabbed up against the Canadian border with no real outlet for import-export with the rest of the world. I could imagine an instance where a lot of the US' minor outlying territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, given that this is a Cold War game the Pacific Islands Trust Territories) calling it quits and going in their own directions, but even if a bunch of nuts in Utah want to reestablish Deseret, you're a long way from the ocean in Utah and your economy will still be at the mercy of the US government.

There's a reason I'm focusing on (resource) rich coastal areas.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 18:20

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

catlord posted:

Is there a version of the Dark Continent Scenario for Vanilla? I'm still learning the game but I want to poke around with an alternate scenario. Also, the idea of westernising weirds me out. I don't like the idea of having to end up next to a western nation, especially when it seems real gamey, like running to Africa as Korea so you can end up next to Portugal or something.

Yeah, pretty much, the bordering thing is the dumbest aspect of it. In my last Ottomans game, I had all the requirements I needed for westernizing, except for bordering an advanced nation, because my economy was so good that I was still more advanced or on par with most of Europe. Holland was 20 tech levels ahead of me, though, so I just buttered them up and sold them one of my non-core provinces. Bam, instant westernization.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 18:36

Guildencrantz: May 1, 2012; IM ONE OF THE GOOD ONES

Vegetable posted:

This is a pretty useful thing to think about. A lot of historians assert that the Cold War ended before the USSR collapsed. They consider several markers: the breakaway of Eastern Europe, the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the signing of START I etc. An alt-history ending of the Cold War should encompass various interpretations as well.

I just want to create an alt-history where neoliberalism never takes hold and the USSR and its satellites break up into welfare states and don't privatize everything. Just so that alternate-universe me is born in a less lovely country :v:

Also, on a completely different note, but this is something I've noticed for a long time. Yell at me if I shouldn't mention it, but:
Does anyone have any ideas about why on earth Paradox games are such a complete sausagefest in terms of the player base?

Seriously, it seems like it's all dudes. I mean, the gaming world is seeing more and more equality, the stigma/fetishization of "girl gamers" is dying, and that's great, we can now see it even with the most "nerdy" subsets of video games. But it seems like these games specifically are the most male-dominated out there, even more than FPSes and such. I've known some pretty hardcore (ugh, I hate that word) female gamers, and yet I have never so much as heard of a woman playing and enjoying a Pdox game. It completely baffles me, it's like these mapgames are the only genre where that half of humanity apparently doesn't exist at all. I'm not saying that it's the studio's fault or that Paradox fans are inherently sexist or something, I don't have any theories, just idly wondering.

(feel free to prove me wrong)

# ? Feb 7, 2013 19:14

Fintilgin: Sep 29, 2004; Fintilgin sweeps!

My wife LOVED Crusader Kings. She won't try CKII, because she's concerned it would distract her while she's finishing her degree program. Of course, she also loves Dwarf Fortress and XCOM, so I knew she was a keeper.

Although for what it's worth she's not the tinest bit interested in any other Paradox game, and is not a history buff. I think the appeal of CK was entirely centered around the Sims like character driven drama.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 19:24

Raw_Beef: Jul 2, 2004; We know what you been up to and my advice on that little venture is to pack it in. It won't work. It will all end in tears.

Guildencrantz posted:

I just want to create an alt-history where neoliberalism never takes hold and the USSR and its satellites break up into welfare states and don't privatize everything. Just so that alternate-universe me is born in a less lovely country

Also, on a completely different note, but this is something I've noticed for a long time. Yell at me if I shouldn't mention it, but:
Does anyone have any ideas about why on earth Paradox games are such a complete sausagefest in terms of the player base?

(feel free to prove me wrong)

These games are for history nerds who are also game nerds. Its a small overlap and majority male in both.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 19:36

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Guildencrantz posted:

I just want to create an alt-history where neoliberalism never takes hold and the USSR and its satellites break up into welfare states and don't privatize everything. Just so that alternate-universe me is born in a less lovely country

Welfare states imply Capitalism, which would mean the satellites would just devolve into neoliberal states eventually anyway, especially with the threat of the USSR gone. :colbert:

Though I'll give you that it's preferable to just going full tilt neoliberal from day one.

Raw_Beef posted:

These games are for history nerds who are also game nerds. Its a small overlap and majority male in both.

Even worse, military history nerds.* But yeah, the enjoyment of Paradox games largely rests on an interest in the kind of stuff the games deal with, so the genre being opened up to women would be predicated on a more substantial shift in societal attitudes than for for example FPS games. Mostly because violence is pretty much the defining aspect of popular culture, while history is just something to bore people with.

*Depending on which history department, the distribution can vary enormously. Art history is heavily female dominated for example. In some universities at least, it's kind of hard to google this poo poo because the words become pretty ambiguous when dealing with this subject.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 7, 2013

# ? Feb 7, 2013 20:21

Mans: Sep 14, 2011; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

This might be a dumb question but is there any fun in playing as an Asian state in EU3? The farthest i've played with was Persia, does the game still maintain any resemblance of fun after that or is it just "Gobble up a few neighbors, wait for the inevitable white conquest"?

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Welfare states imply Capitalism, which would mean the satellites would just devolve into neoliberal states eventually anyway, especially with the threat of the USSR gone. Though I'll give you that it's preferable to just going full tilt neoliberal from day one.

But don't you see, the USSR actually impeded the rise of true Socialism. With the stigma of it gone Social Democratic states can democratically and voluntarily reach Socialism through shared prosperity and peace :goonsay:

# ? Feb 7, 2013 20:58

binge crotching: Apr 2, 2010

Anyone know if there will be another CK2 bundle sale? I want to buy it for a friend of mine, and while I don't mind spending $40 on CK2 + DLC, it would be $70 if I was to get it now.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 21:11

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

SeaTard posted:

Anyone know if there will be another CK2 bundle sale? I want to buy it for a friend of mine, and while I don't mind spending $40 on CK2 + DLC, it would be $70 if I was to get it now.

Probably when the Old Gods comes out, barring that it'll go on sale around Easter.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 21:14

Cityinthesea: Aug 7, 2009

Guildencrantz posted:

(feel free to prove me wrong)

There are a few (including me) but yeah military history is a dude's thing. I mean I care less about the military aspect of it, then, say, the cultural aspect of it; I liked colonizing all of America as Norway but I could care less about warring against Europe as Austria or something.

Also paradox fans (at least on the official forums) are largely, actually pretty sexist so yup, especially when you bring up enatic succession in CK2.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 21:22

Trujillo: Jul 10, 2007

Mans posted:

This might be a dumb question but is there any fun in playing as an Asian state in EU3? The farthest i've played with was Persia, does the game still maintain any resemblance of fun after that or is it just "Gobble up a few neighbors, wait for the inevitable white conquest"?

Some more than others. The only one I have any experience with is forming hindustan/mughal empire in India and taking over the world from there (or at least getting to the point where you know you would if you wanted to slog through it). You want to expand but not too quickly because the stability costs will make westernizing miserable and not too slowly so you can overpower europe when you do westernize. Take all the good spice provinces, trade centers and coastline for yourself while you move your sliders into the right spots. A lot of it's going to be downtime though while you wait to lower infamy/raise stability and not much else at least till you westernize.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 21:41

Bold Robot: Jan 6, 2009; Be brave.

SeaTard posted:

Anyone know if there will be another CK2 bundle sale? I want to buy it for a friend of mine, and while I don't mind spending $40 on CK2 + DLC, it would be $70 if I was to get it now.

For what it's worth, CK2 bucks the Paradox trend of absolutely necessary expansions. The base game is totally fun on its own and you only really need the expansions if you want to play as a Muslim, or a Republic, or improve the Byzantines, etc. So, if you're buying it for your friend, he would not need to get all of the expansions immediately. Contrast this with, say, EU3 where it would be laughable to just give someone the base game.

If you want to play multiplayer with him, I think only the host needs the expansions, but I'm not sure. I haven't tried it personally.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 21:42

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

SeaTard posted:

Anyone know if there will be another CK2 bundle sale? I want to buy it for a friend of mine, and while I don't mind spending $40 on CK2 + DLC, it would be $70 if I was to get it now.

It'll almost definitely be on the Steam Summer Sale at the very latest, and it might show up as a sale sooner, like when The Old Gods gets released. That said, the DLC-isolation absolutely works, and you can get someone just the base game and you should be able to play with him, he just can't play as anything besides a Feudal Lord-type character.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 22:42

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Is there anything like Kersch's EU3 and CK2 LPs for Victoria II? I have no idea what I'm doing.

Mans posted:

This might be a dumb question but is there any fun in playing as an Asian state in EU3? The farthest i've played with was Persia, does the game still maintain any resemblance of fun after that or is it just "Gobble up a few neighbors, wait for the inevitable white conquest"?

Indian states are fun, and if you do your expansion right you're as rich as anyone in Europe, although westernizing is still a pain. Vijayanagar isn't that different from a European nation.

Cityinthesea posted:

Also paradox fans (at least on the official forums) are largely, actually pretty sexist so yup, especially when you bring up enatic succession in CK2.

I really don't understand why they hate anything that isn't agnatic so much. The Paradox forums even get angry about absolute cognatic succession, when it was historically used during CK2's time period. And disabling a new succession law would be as easy as typing two words into a text file.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 22:57

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

Bold Robot posted:

For what it's worth, CK2 bucks the Paradox trend of absolutely necessary expansions. The base game is totally fun on its own and you only really need the expansions if you want to play as a Muslim, or a Republic, or improve the Byzantines, etc. So, if you're buying it for your friend, he would not need to get all of the expansions immediately. Contrast this with, say, EU3 where it would be laughable to just give someone the base game.

If you want to play multiplayer with him, I think only the host needs the expansions, but I'm not sure. I haven't tried it personally.

This is correct on all points. (Legacy of Rome's retinues are nice even for a non-Byzantine, but definitely non-essential, especially for a beginner.)

James Garfield posted:

I really don't understand why they hate anything that isn't agnatic so much. The Paradox forums even get angry about absolute cognatic succession, when it was historically used during CK2's time period. And disabling a new succession law would be as easy as typing two words into a text file.

How did they react to Wiz's Gender Equality mod?

# ? Feb 7, 2013 22:58

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Mans posted:

This might be a dumb question but is there any fun in playing as an Asian state in EU3? The farthest i've played with was Persia, does the game still maintain any resemblance of fun after that or is it just "Gobble up a few neighbors, wait for the inevitable white conquest"?

I've no idea if it is in vanilla EU3, but it can certainly be in Magna Mundi. One option is playing as a south-east Asian trading nation, in which case you should be able to match/beat Europe technologically, all the while being in a very nice position to colonize Australia/Oceania/the North American west coast. At least that was possible in the HTTT version of the mod, haven't tried it in the DW beta version. In that there's the option of doing a pretty entertaining "Mongol" conquest of India, which is very different from playing in Europe. The Horde mechanics might be much maligned, but in this specific case they work pretty well. Instead of the usual problem of having to slow down and digest your conquests, the Horde system basically encourages you to conquer all of India in as short a time as possible, so you can begin exploiting the riches properly as the sedentary Mughals.

By that point, you're probably going to run into some technologically superior Europeans, but you should be able to prevent them from gaining a foothold and becoming a real menace. Though admittedly I was blessed by Allah in my playthrough, as Russia inherited Portugal* not long before my Khorasan horde gained a border with them, which basically meant a much easier time at evicting the Portuguese from India. I guess maybe the same thing is possible in vanilla DW? Anyone playing MM should disable the Naval System before even starting their first game though, that poo poo's just annoying.

*A real rarity in Magna Mundi, that basically prevented the Portuguese colonies in South America from expanding beyond the 4 they had when they were inherited.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:11

Cityinthesea: Aug 7, 2009

James Garfield posted:

I really don't understand why they hate anything that isn't agnatic so much. The Paradox forums even get angry about absolute cognatic succession, when it was historically used during CK2's time period. And disabling a new succession law would be as easy as typing two words into a text file.

They just scream "it's not historical" until they're blue in the face.

The AI never changes it's gender laws anyway, so only the player could use it (but that doesn't matter because of reasons).

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:16

TOOT BOOT: May 25, 2010

It's weird, after years of displaying absolutely 0 interest in Paradox games, I now own CK2, EU3, Victoria II, and HoI 3 + all expansions and DLC for each game. :negative:

Of course, that Amazon sale helped quite a bit here.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:26

Gone Fashing: Aug 4, 2004; KEEP POSTIN
I'M STILL LAFFIN

Welcome to the first day of the rest of your life

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:27

Kavak: Aug 23, 2009

James Garfield posted:

I really don't understand why they hate anything that isn't agnatic so much. The Paradox forums even get angry about absolute cognatic succession, when it was historically used during CK2's time period. And disabling a new succession law would be as easy as typing two words into a text file.

To play devil's advocate, I've always been hesitant about instituting pure cognatic succession in my games because of this scenario:

1. Eldest daughter is married matrilineally, inherits throne.
2. Her daughter is eldest child and heir to throne, is not married matrilineally, children are of husband's dynasty.
3. Daughter's daughter dies and throne passes out of dynasty, game over.

There's probably something I'm forgetting that makes that scenario irrelevant and I'll be using Wiz's Equality Mod when I try CK2 again, but that's why I always stops at Agnatic-Cognatic.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:29

The Chad Jihad: Feb 24, 2007

Kavak posted:

To play devil's advocate, I've always been hesitant about instituting pure cognatic succession in my games because of this scenario:

1. Eldest daughter is married matrilineally, inherits throne.
2. Her daughter is eldest child and heir to throne, is not married matrilineally, children are of husband's dynasty.
3. Daughter's daughter dies and throne passes out of dynasty, game over.

There's probably something I'm forgetting that makes that scenario irrelevant and I'll be using Wiz's Equality Mod when I try CK2 again, but that's why I always stops at Agnatic-Cognatic.

They're talking about people who are angry that absolute cognatic is even an option, not about people who avoid it for mechanical (or otherwise) reasons

edit: History gamers often have a very, very specific and narrow vision of what constitutes acceptable historicity and pitch poo poo-fits when anything occurs outside that, even if that thing was something that actually happened

The Chad Jihad fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 7, 2013

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:34

Cityinthesea: Aug 7, 2009

Kavak posted:

To play devil's advocate, I've always been hesitant about instituting pure cognatic succession in my games because of this scenario:

1. Eldest daughter is married matrilineally, inherits throne.
2. Her daughter is eldest child and heir to throne, is not married matrilineally, children are of husband's dynasty.
3. Daughter's daughter dies and throne passes out of dynasty, game over.

There's probably something I'm forgetting that makes that scenario irrelevant and I'll be using Wiz's Equality Mod when I try CK2 again, but that's why I always stops at Agnatic-Cognatic.

This bugs me, I will often just go into the console and kill off regular married husbands of women heirs, and usually the women will marry matrilineally that time.

This is probably a fix for the AI, though.

# ? Feb 7, 2013 23:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 14:48

Cantorsdust: Aug 10, 2008; Infinitely many points, but zero length.

Is Kersch's miscmods compatible with the most recent EU3 5.2 beta?

# ? Feb 8, 2013 00:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›799 »